I am usually eager to read the latest Donna Leon but for some reason did not feel like yet another tale about infertility when Suffer Little Children came out, so have only just got round to it
The repeated speculation about the reason for alleged reduced sperm counts in Western men reminded me of an older speculation of my own. I have never seen it mentioned anywhere else, which may be for the very good reason that it is a nonsense. Or just that I do not follow the literature on such topics. But here goes anyway
It is only since the 1960s, & really only since the mid-70s that women have, in any great numbers, begun their childbearing after what may be a lengthy period on the Pill
Contrary to widespread belief the Pill was not, in this country at least, easy to come by for unmarried women until 1973, when the Government made universal free contraception available on the NHS.
A GP could always provide the Pill on paid-for prescription if he felt it clinically indicated
In the 1960s many (mostly still male) GPs felt that they should certainly not condone immorality in unmarried women & many also felt that the avoidance of pregnancy was not in itself a clinical need in an otherwise healthy young woman. So they prescribed the Pill mainly for women who had completed their families, or for whom pregnancy could be dangerous
The Family Planning Association services were available usually only to those who were, or were about to be married. Brook Advisory operated only in London at first. Some local authorities provided contraceptive advice as a public health service. But generally speaking you had to be a pretty affluent & confident young woman to go looking for the Pill
My speculation about sperm counts is simply this: could a prolonged period on the Pill have any effect on the development of spermatogenesis in any subsequent son?
